different ballparks and different effects. If I had had a better player in my minors would have brought him up and saved the $$, I didn't. But thanks for making my point - there were 2 usable players available in Cooperstown at the end of FA, so that myth is thuroughly exploded.

Hardly. There will always be usuable players at the end of FA. The difference is whether you get the two I got in BTP who OPS'd around .845 in a heavy pitcher's park or the two we got in Coop who OPS'd .720.

So, when you think your point is made by someone else, be sure they actually made it.

Since he finished 3rd on the team in OPS, and the team finished 10 games ahead of Charlotte based on record, and it plays in a -2 HR park = The OPS is respectable. The point is you can find usable players in any league at the end of FA. Are they world killers, usuallly not (an occasional type A to the contrary), but usable, yes.

.720 OPS from a 1B/LF is not respectable. It's friggin' horrible. The two I signed had an OPS almost .130 higher in MEMPHIS -2,-2,-3,-2,-2. They are not even vaguely similar in quality and I got two players for the price of your one.

I get what you're trying to do. You're just choosing the wrong fight to have to defend your low ranking world.

I looked at the last completed season only - I may look at the latest 3 seasons eventually--giving more weight to the last season

The following factors were looked at.

1. Parity - Leagues were asigned a score based on the best and worst teams.For example, a league with 5 100+ win teams and 5 100+ loss teams, wouldnt fare well in my ranking system. The worse the bottom teams are, and the more dominant the top teams are, the more it affects the rankings.

2. Fielding - Good owners dont play fielders out of position. I ranked worlds based on +/- fielding stats.

3. Pitching - The best worlds generally have reasonable eras. Most worlds are bunched very closely in average era. The best worlds will gain a ranking advantage by having the lowest overall ERAs and the worlds with horrid eras are penalized.

I have a suggestion for a tweak on your parity factor - why not total the amount of wins earned by the top 6 per world and the amount of losses in the bottom 6 to come up with a number? The lower the better. A 100 win team is not much better than a 99 win team IMO.

I also think that ERA is going to be indicative of the mix of talent that a particular world might have, and not an indicator of "quality". Some worlds are more hitter heavy. Some worlds have better pitching.

I looked at the last completed season only - I may look at the latest 3 seasons eventually--giving more weight to the last season

The following factors were looked at.

1. Parity - Leagues were asigned a score based on the best and worst teams.For example, a league with 5 100+ win teams and 5 100+ loss teams, wouldnt fare well in my ranking system. The worse the bottom teams are, and the more dominant the top teams are, the more it affects the rankings.

2. Fielding - Good owners dont play fielders out of position. I ranked worlds based on +/- fielding stats.

3. Pitching - The best worlds generally have reasonable eras. Most worlds are bunched very closely in average era. The best worlds will gain a ranking advantage by having the lowest overall ERAs and the worlds with horrid eras are penalized.

I have a suggestion for a tweak on your parity factor - why not total the amount of wins earned by the top 6 per world and the amount of losses in the bottom 6 to come up with a number? The lower the better. A 100 win team is not much better than a 99 win team IMO.

Yeah, I've already posted that I am going to go that route for parity - probably top 4 and bottom 4 though.

if you have something constructive to add, go ahead. Or if you have a better method or truly give a ****, come up with your own rankings. Averages were taken because thats what is available. Show me a better method with data that can quickly be captured, and I'll be all aboard.

curious if you used season 21 or 22 for cochrane? we are in the playoff in season 22 so the reg season is finished. i am finally getting a handle on the league after 5-6 seasons private. we were initially a public league with high turnover, shoddy ownership, lopsided deals, etc. This past season we returned everyone from season 21. Albeit there is some parity, Florida is incredible and San Diego is really bad, but I won't as commish remove a guy from the league who has been there for 13 seasons (from before we were private) because he enjoys the game but is not very successful at it, that is just wrong IMHO... The most important statistics in a league to me are owner enjoyment and turnover. As a commish if the owners in my league enjoy being a part of it they return season after season and that continuity makes it a lot of fun. That is by no means a stab at you dmurph as we appreciate the work you put into this. At the end of the day if my owners return ranking are irrelevant because noone else is joining!

Posted by dmurphy104 on 4/19/2012 8:18:00 AM (view original):if you have something constructive to add, go ahead. Or if you have a better method or truly give a ****, come up with your own rankings. Averages were taken because thats what is available. Show me a better method with data that can quickly be captured, and I'll be all aboard.

Well, given what you are trying to do, I have no understanding of what the value of using averages is. Why not something simple and useful, like median absolute deviation? Wouldn't that tell you a much better story between the haves and have nots? I just have a great dislike for people trying to pawn themselves off as an expert on stuff they don't know anything about... especially in this case when you have such an exceedingly poor reputation as an owner.

People with a .474 winning percentage, no championships in 70+ seasons, only making the playoffs 20 times and multiple sub 60 win seasons should not be submitting the rankings of anything unless they involve being an awful owner.